Posts Tagged ‘George Stephanopoulos’

A Nexis database search reveals that there are at least 18 individuals in the Aurora, Colorado area named “James Holmes.” Yet Brian Ross managed to pick out just one of these 18 to cite—the one who is a member of the Tea Party—without first checking to see if this was the same person as the shooter.

What are the odds of that?

You need to understand: ABC didn’t google “James Holmes Aurora”; they googled “James Holmes Aurora tea party”. They NEVERwould have googled “James Holmes Democrat” or “James Holmes OWS” and ran with that connection if one turned up (there actually WAS a registered Democrat named “James Holmes,” for what it’s worth).

The dishonesty of the media is beyond parallel unless you go to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

Was the error corrected? Yeah, and it didn’t even take that long, thanks to the fact that today, unlike in the fairly recent past, we’ve got Fox News and we’ve got a lot of dedicated bloggers who at least try to correct the avalanche of lies the mainstream media tells in the guise of “reporting.” But this is like the sixth time the mainstream media has falsely charged the Tea Party with some awful crime. And they know how the game works: it doesn’t matter if the story is true and it doesn’t matter if the story has to be “corrected”; what matters is that over and over and over the media insinuates that the tea party is somehow “dangerous” and the fecal matter that they keep throwing at it sticks in the public perception. That question by the falsely accused, slandered man, “Which office do I go to get my reputation back?” is what the press is banking on. Because part of the infamous “Big Lie” strategy was to tar their targets with such a climate of doubt that, even if each individual accusation proved to be untrue, the professional propagandists knew that the sheer weight of negative attack would ultimately culminate in affecting the perception of the people.

SHAMEFUL, SIMPLY SHAMEFUL BUT WE HAVE BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO IT FROM THE LIBERAL, BIAS MSM …

Exactly what part about investigative journalism do Brian Ross and George Stephanopoulos not understand? The liberal lame stream media was so quick to jump to a conclusion that James Holmes, the ‘Dark Night’ shooter who killed 12 movie go’ers last night and injured 70 while going on his shooting rampage in Aurora, Colorado. So if ABC News did not know it was the same Jim Holmes and did not try to confirm it, why would they have reported it? Can you say liberal irresponsible journalism?

ABC News has suggested that James Holmes — the suspect in today’s shooting in Aurora, Colorado — may have a connection to the Tea Party.

ABC’s Brian Ross reported this morning that there is “a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site… talking about him joining the Tea Party last year.”

“Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes,” Ross cautioned “but it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.”

Great investigative journalism ABC, how difficult could it really have been to have called the the Colorado Tea Party to confirm that it was the same Jim Holmes? But no, you media hacks were salivating and wanted to believe it was a Tea Party member so that you could rail against them. Do you people have any conscience? Obviously you have no journalistic integrity. This is the extent of ABC News investigation, a google search that got them the following web page. Not one call or email to the Colorado Tea Party Patriots to confirm that it was the same individual. Nope, no second source by ABC, they just went to the accusation hoping they were correct. As stated at Breitbart.com. what else would we expect from a corrupt media complex with a political agenda?

On Good Morning America, ABC News’ Brian Ross and George Stephanopoulos suggested that the Tea Party might be connected to the mass shootings early this morning in an Aurora, CO theater during a screening of the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises. The mainstream media attempted to blame the Tea Party for the Tuscon shootings in January 2011, shortly after Republicans swept the midterm elections. Now, in the critical 2012 elections, the mainstream media seems poised to do the same–and ABC News has led the way.

Here is the exchange between Brian Ross and George Stephanolpoulos:

Stephanolpoulos: I’m going to go to Brian Ross. You’ve been investigating the background of Jim Holmes here. You found something that might be significant.

Ross: There’s a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year. Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.

What kind of idiot makes that kind of statement?” Holmes told TheDC. “Really, seriously, how do we take a journalist seriously when it’s pretty clear they really haven’t done any sort of check on their facts?”

Holmes has the unfortunate coincidence of sharing a similar name with James Holmes, the 24-year-old accused of going on a rampage during a midnight showing of the “Dark Knight Rises” in Aurora, Colo., early Friday morning.

Because of this, ABC News reporter Brian Ross, appearing on “Good Morning America” on Friday, suggested the suspect could be a member of the tea party, citing the fact that “there’s a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea Party site.”

But Ross had the wrong guy: The tea partier he was referring to is this 52-year-old former law enforcement officer. ABC News was forced to apologize online.

Holmes told TheDC that ABC News didn’t call him before going to air and he still hasn’t heard from them or received a direct apology. “No, not a thing,” he said.

ABC News would later apologize for their rush to judgement and poor reporting. However, their initial apology was hardly one at all. ABC News stated, tried to spread the blame around to “social media” and “members of the public”.

An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. Several other local residents with similar names were also contacted via social media by members of the public who mistook them for the suspect.

Wait, after the firestorm from their screw up, ABC finally admits their faultof outing the wrong Jim Holmes and that they never vetted the story. It’s not that you failed to vet a story, you creating journalistic malpractice.

Editor’s Note: An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted.

Wanna see what happens when you use ABC’s Brian Ross methodology of investigative journalism? From Glenn Beckcome brilliant satire … Why does ABC New have employed an individual arrested for murder and sending sexually explicit photos and tests to teen girls? Hmm?

Charge one: Chris Davis was brutally killed and murdered he was found facedown in his pool. Brian Ross has been arrested for the killing of Chris Davis

Explicit photos and text messages to two girls has landed a 37-year-old Mentone man in jail on suspicion of sex-related charges, according to Fontana police and jail records.

Brian John Ross was arrested at 5:35 p.m. Thursday at Sierra and Merrill avenues in Fontana and booked on suspicion of contacting a minor and arranging to meet with a minor via the Internet for the purpose of having sex, jail records show. His bail is $50,000.

On March 13, a 10-year-old Fontana girl received a text message from a man who would later identify himself as a 38-year-old named “Brian,” police said in a written statement.

Brian sent the girl a face shot along with a photo of himself exposed, according to the statement.

“Brian asked (the girl) to send him pictures of herself,” according to the statement.

Similar text messages were sent to the girl’s 13-year-old cousin from Redlands.

And, yes, it seems that it Brian Ross is not just a child molester, but a murderer:

ST. ALBANS, Vt. – Thursday morning, St. Albans Police started rounding up suspects in the death of Christopher Davis, 22.

“Chris grew up with all of these people, they were friends his whole life, he trusted them,” said Samanthajo Assisi, Davis’ girlfriend.

Police say on March 21, Travis Bugbee and Brian Ross, both 23, of St. Albans, lured Davis to the city swimming pool in a plot to rob him. When Davis arrived, the two men allegedly kicked and beat him, took Davis’ money, drugs and other items he was carrying.

“He might have owed people some money for drugs, not these people, and that might be common knowledge,” St. Albans Police Chief Gary Taylor said.

Davis’ body was found in the pool a few weeks later.

ABC’s Brian Ross ought to be fired – either for being a murderous child molester or maybe just for being a sloppy propagandist posing as a “journalist.” George Stephanopoulos – who began his career as a Democrat media spinmeister – ought to be fired for his key participation in Brian Ross’ “journalism.”

There have been at least 7,379 Occupy arrests (see also here). Versus basically ZERO for the Tea Party. And yet the media long ago “decided” that the Tea Party was dangerous and the Occupy Wall Street movement was NOT dangerous out of their leftist propagandist bias.

What do Democrats say when one of the political strategists most responsible for getting Bill Clinton elected argues that Barack Obama has been a total disaster and failure over his non-role in the Gulf of Mexico disaster?

ABC political strategist, and prominent Democrat, James Carville appeared on Wednesday’s Good Morning America to condemn Barack Obama’s response to the oil spill.

A very emotional Carville surprised host George Stephanopoulos, a friend and former colleague in the Clinton White House, by shouting, “And it just looks like he’s not involved in this! Man, you have got to get down here and take control of this!” [Audio available here.]

Carville, a resident of Louisiana, attacked, “Put somebody in charge of this and get this thing moving! We’re about to die down here!”

Stephanopoulos seemed taken aback by the instensity of his fellow Democrat and tried to spin for Obama: “Well, the President is going down on Friday. He’s announcing these tighter new regulations on Thursday.” The host implored, “What more can the President do here?”

Stephanopoulos, who was also talking to former Bush pollster Matthew Dowd, attempted to direct the conversation away from the spill in the Gulf and towards immigration. He gently pivoted, “Okay. You’ve answered that question.”

But, Carville returned to the topic and, again, snapped, “The Attorney General needs to investigate criminal negligence on the part of BP and what went on at MMS. There are a thousand of things that [Obama] can do. He just needs to get down here and start doing something. People are dying!”

Stephanopoulos reiterated, “Okay. Well, the President is going to be there on Friday.”

With a strong Democrat like James Carville blasting the President’s handling of the oil spill, it may become difficult for journalists to continue covering for Obama on this subject.

A transcript of the May 26 segment, which aired at 7:06am EDT, follows:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, the White House denies any political motivation here. But, immigration and this oil spill have become two, big political headaches for the administration. So, let’s bring in our political strategist, James Carville, worked for Bill Clinton. Matthew Dowd, pollster for George W. Bush, also some Democrats, as well. And, James, let’s begin with the oil spill. Last week, even though you’re an ally of President Obama, you blasted the White House. Said it was a lackadaisical response, said they were naive for trusting BP. And you went on to say that this is a disaster of the first magnitude. They have got to go to Plan B. Are we seeing Plan B now?

JAMES CARVILLE: Man, I hope so, George. Because, the political stupidity is unbelievable. Here, you have a situation, where you have some working- 11 working- hard-working people, blown up as the result of corporate malfeasance and maybe criminal negligence, as a result of inept bureaucrats who were part of the- you can actually blame the previous administration for this. And the President doesn’t get down here in the middle of this. This thing should be- his approval should be up seven points right now if he had come down. I have no idea of why they didn’t seize this thing. I have no idea of why their attitude was so hands-off-y here. It’s just unbelievable. Now, I hope he sees it now, because very seldom do you get good politics and the really the right thing to do. And that is to get involved here.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the President is going down on Friday. He’s announcing these tighter new regulations on Thursday. Matthew Dowd, you lived through Katrina with President Bush. What we are seeing now, for the first time on this issue, a majority disapprove of how he’s handling it. But, do you see this posing a Katrina-like threat, political threat to President Obama?

MATTHEW DOWD: Well, I think this incident that happened, the environmental disaster that happened, is another example for the American public that they can’t trust corporations and big government to protect them. And I think ultimately, it will be a real political problem. It hasn’t affected his numbers yet. But, James is right. In a disaster like this, his numbers should be going up. Not just staying stagnant. And, ultimately, I think the country right now is so frustrated on a lot of things. This is just another example where they say, “What is government doing? And what can they do well?” We have disasters. And we’re seeming to be on Plan G ”

STEPHANOPOULOS: But, let me ask both of you this: What more can the President do here? He didn’t-

CARVILLE: George! George! George! The President of the United States could have come down here. He could have been involved with the families of these 11 people. He could have commandeered the things. We could have sent the Woods Hole people. He could have sent the Scripps on research vessels in the Gulf of Mexico. He could have implemented a plan in anticipation of this. You know, right, he can’t exactly fill the hole up. Last night I was on Larry King, the CEO, the former CEO of the Shell. They said they got 85 percent of the stuff cleaned up in the Gulf of Saudi Arabia. He could be commandeering tankers and making BP bring tankers in and clean this up. They could the deploying people to the coast right now. He could be deploying people to the coast. He could be with the corps of engineers and the Coast Guard with these people in Plaquemines Parish, doing something about these regulations. These people are crying. They’re begging for something down here. And it just looks like he’s not involved in this! Man, you have got to get down here and take control of this! Put somebody in charge of this and get this thing moving! We’re about to die down here!

STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay. You’ve answered that question. Let me turn to Matthew Dowd on immigration. Another big political wave heading toward the President, announcing these new troops towards the border. Will this be enough to stem this political wave that’s coming right at him?

DOWD: No. Not at all. And, I mean, ultimately, this was a political move. He would not have done this but for what happened with Arizona and what’s going on in the rest of the country. It’s not just an Arizona problem. The rest of the country thinks the government is broken and can’t- doesn’t have an immigration policy. So, yeah. I think this is a symbolic act. It’s not going to- 1,200 troops on the border that stretches from California to Texas is not going to do anything to stop drugs from coming over or stop the gang killings and all the things going on. It is symbolic. Presidencies, as James just said- Symbolism is very important. If you show up at a disaster, it’s important. I think the symbolism here, it’s not going to have substantive effect. But it is a political problem when the majority of the country supports what Arizona did.

STEPHANOPOULOS, And clearly, James, the Arizona member of Congress, Gabrielle Gifford, who announces he’s happy with what the President is announcing. But, the President has also got to manage a lot of others in his Democratic base, who are concerned that the push for comprehensive immigration reform may stall.

CARVILLE: He does. It’s a heck of a problem. I’m not exactly sure if you hear conflicting things. Some think that the crime rate in Arizona is down, with the number of illegals into Arizona is down over a period of time. I have no idea what the facts are. But, obviously, they have some problem on their border. They really feel that way. This is an area of great frustration. And he’s doing something. Hopefully this works. But, man, he’s got to- the other thing he needs to do. They need to launch a criminal investigation. The Attorney General needs to investigate criminal negligence on the part of BP and what went on at MMS. There are a thousand of things that he can do. He just needs to get down here and start doing something. People are dying!

STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay. Well, the President is going to be there on Friday. Thank you both for your passion and insight this morning.

Dowd says it hasn’t affected Obama’s numbers yet. Matthew, you dope, Obama is at 42%, with a whopping 56% disapproving of his performance!!! If the BP disaster and Obama’s complete failure to respond to it haven’t hurt his numbers yet, just how low do you think he’s going to go???

As article author Whitlock points out, George Stephanopoulos is caught doing his darndest to shill for Obama. Which is kind of a weird place for an ABC political journalist and host of ABC’s flagship political program to be, until you realize that just a few years ago he was a liberal Democrat Clinton hack until ABC decided that such demonstrated blatant bias didn’t matter.

But think about it: the overall mainstream media is now basically revealing that it is well to the political left of James Carville now. And that is very, VERY far to the left!!!

When even James Carville realizes that Obama has been an abject failure, he has been an abject failure indeed.

In a different forum, Anita Dunn said the following about how the Obama campaign team handled the media [Youtube]:

“But we, um, increasingly by the general election, very rarely, did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control.”

You can frankly only imagine what a snit such people could get in trying to deal with a media outlet that refused to allow itself to be controlled.

A discussion between George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” and Obama senior adviser David Axelrod from yesterday, October 18, continues the trend of the Obama White House demonizing Fox News on other media outlets — no matter how hypocritical it looks:

RUPERT MURDOCH, NEWSCORP: There were some strong remarks coming out of the White House about one or two of the commentators on Fox News. And all I can tell you is it has tremendously increased their ratings.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: That does seem to be true. Are you worried that your strategy is fortifying your enemy?

AXELROD: Well, I don’t — you know, I’m not concerned. Mr. Murdoch has a — has a talent for making money, and I understand that their programming is geared toward making money. All — the only argument Anita was making is that they’re not really a news station, if you watch — even — it’s not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming, it’s really not news. It’s pushing a point of view.

And the bigger thing is that other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way. We’re going to appear on their shows. We’re going to participate, but understanding that they represent a point of view.

Am I the only one who remembers that George Stephanopoulos was Bill Clinton’s press secretary and spin doctor before suddenly transforming into someone who was incapable of “pushing one point of view.”

By contrast, Chris Wallace, the host of “Fox News Sunday” – Fox News’ counterpart to ABC’s “This Week” – is a career journalist who came to Fox News after a long stint at ABC.

Moral of the story: the only way for a broadcast media station to NOT “push a point of view” is to hire career Democrat political operatives.

Let us please face a basic fact: the media is absolutely ridden with liberals. Career MSNBC and CBS journalist Mika Brzezinski had some amazing declarations about the extent to which liberals dominated the networks she worked for.

That survey reveals how insane the Obama White House is; they are directly attacking and demonizing the news network that Americans trust more than any other.

A study done jointly by the University of Chicago and Stanford University found Fox News to be more accurate than most other news outlets, in addition to finding a dramatic leftist bias in the news media overall.

In addition to that finding, a UCLA study concludes, “almost all major media outlets tilt to the left,” noting that “Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center.” But apparently many liberals believe that a university located in liberal California in ultra-liberal Los Angeles is somehow a conservative bastion loaded with rightwing bias.

89 percent of Washington-based reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only seven percent voted for George Bush, with two percent choosing Ross Perot. […]

Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire, the Washington-based reporters — by an incredible margin of nine-to-one — overwhelmingly cast their presidential ballots in 1992 for Democrat Bill Clinton over Republican incumbent George Bush.

There is overwhelming historic evidence of hardcore leftwing bias throughout our mainstream media, but we’re somehow supposed to ignore the giant logs of bias located in both the mainstream media’s eyes and instead concentrate on the speck of bias at Fox News.

Major studies and surveys of media accuracy have for several years routinely discovered that the media is overwhelmingly tilted to the left. Fox News looks so “Republican” to many only because so much of the media is so utterly and completely “Democrat.”

At the Oct. 7 presidential debate, Barack Obama said, “If you make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you will not see a single dime of your taxes go up. If you make $200,000 a year or less, your taxes will go down.”

I point this out so that you realize that Obama supports your (note: use any word but “taxes” here) going up by 85800 dimes if your family makes $66,000 a year. More on that later.

Our Narcissist-in-Chief appeared on five Sunday morning political talk show programs to sell the current iteration of ObamaCare. During his time with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week,” there was this exchange:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate…

OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t

How is that not a tax?

OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on.

If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.

People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…

OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…

OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…

OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that.

Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

This little chunk of dialogue should show anyone what a truly disingenuous little weasel Barack Obama truly is.

Let’s start with the “critics say it is a tax increase” part that Obama deceitfully jumped all over. Obama’s answer makes it seem that all the people characterizing the “individual mandate” as a “tax increase” are rightwing Republican loons. But – to allude to Joe Wilson’s famous outburst – Obama lies.

Page 29, sentence one of the bill introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) says: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.”

And just in case someone wants to argue that Obama wasn’t familiar with the details of the Baucus bill because it’s so recent (in which case an honest man would have simply kept his mouth shut), allow me to refer to the House bill that has been around for months:

‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .”

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.

And if that isn’t enough to convince someone that Obama is flat-out lying to the American people, let’s go back to his days on the campaign trail to see that he very much knew that his health care agenda was going to cost huge money that would require heavy taxation:

So the “notion” that Obama “absolutely rejects” is absolutely true. It’s Obama who is lying.

So when Obama says, “My critics say everything is a tax increase.” And, “My critics say I’m taking over every sector of the economy,” maybe people will finally start to trust us when we tell them that everything he’s proposing IS a tax increase, and he really IS taking over every sector of the economy.

You just can’t trust this guy. He’s the kind of fellow who would candy-coat cow pies and sell them by the dozen.

Let’s look at just how disingenuous and deceitful Obama is as he tries to sell his lie. He says to Stephanopoulos:

“No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase.”

And so Stephanopoulos – perfectly reasonably – referred to the dictionary to demonstrate that he was hardly “making up language” as Obama had just falsely claimed:

“I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — ‘a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.'”

And you can just wrap up every lie, every fallacy, every disinformation tactic, every pile of crap, ever uttered by this Weasel-in-Chief in this one amazing rhetoric:

“George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.”

So Obama begins by saying that the notion that the government mandate on individuals being “tax increase” is “made-up language”, and then tries to say that referring to a dictionary and documenting that it is clearly NOT made up language somehow demonstrates the opposite of what it in fact clearly demonstrates.

This is a president who truly believes that you are stupid.

Now that we’ve pointed out that 1) Obama is a liar who 2) thinks you’re stupid and that 3) it clearly IS a tax increase, let us see just how huge of a tax increase that Obama wants to foist on the sea of drooling idiots he calls America.

Under the section entitled, “Would there be an individual mandate?”Time Magazine answers:

Yes. Beginning in 2013, individuals would be required to have health insurance. Individuals and families who do not have insurance for more than three months in a given year would be subject to an annual excise tax of $750 and $1,500, respectively, if their income is below 300% of the federal poverty line (or $66,150 for a family of four). Tax penalties for individuals and families with incomes above that would be $950 and $3,800. The excise tax would be waived for Native Americans and individuals and families whose health-insurance costs would be more than 10% of their annual income.

George Will brings that paragraph into sharp focus in the discussion that followed Obama’s appearance, saying:

“And this week, George, something immense happened, and that is we got a big number. Actually, we got a little number. We deal with hundreds of billions and trillions of dollars in talking about this. The number that came out this week is 13 percent.

They said 13 percent of a family’s income, a family making $66,000 a year, about $15,000 over the median income, about 13 percent of their income under this plan would go for health care, not counting co-payments and not counting deductibles.”

That’s right. The tax increase that Obama deceitfully refuses to call a tax increase (because that would expose his even more fundamental lie that he would LOWER TAXES for people making less than $200,000 a year) would cost a family making $66,000 a year a whopping $8,500 bucks – not counting co-op payments or deductibles.

That’s 85,850 dimes for those of you who bought Obama’s campaign promise.

So we’re not just talking about a giant lie; we’re talking about an incredibly expensive lie. Quite possibly the most expensive lie in American political history.

MR. RUSSERT: But, but—so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

As another gigantic lie, Obama promised that he would accept federal matching funds if John McCain did (which McCain kept his word and did). In rejecting federal matching funds, Obama became the first candidate to reject such funds. After hypocritically and self-righteously praising the federal matching funds system as “limiting the corrupting influence of money on the race.”

Obama is even worse than a liar. He is a deceiver; he carefully crafts a story with just enough of the truth in it to fool you so you will buy a whole package of lies.

An awful lot of people who voted for Obama or who are supporting his health care plan are going to find themselves very, very shocked if Obama gets anything close to his way.

Don’t believe this president who was against individual mandates before he was for them. And don’t forget his amazing lie that a huge tax increase isn’t a tax increase.

As George Stephanopoulos asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi virtually the same question over and over again – and as Pelosi provided one disingenuous non sequitur after another – Stephanopoulos increasingly began to look as if he had just stepped in something that really stank.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: You’ve been getting a lot of heat for not allowing a straight up or down vote expanding drilling off the coasts of the United States. Why won’t you permit a straight up or down vote?

NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: What we have presented are options that will really make a difference at the pump. Free our oil, Mr. President. We’re sitting on 700 million barrels of oil. That would have an immediate effect in ten days. What our colleagues are talking about is something that won’t have an effect for ten years and it will be 2 cents at the time. If they want to present something that’s part of an energy package, we’re talking about something. But to single shoot on something that won’t work and mislead the American people as to thinking it’s going to reduce the price at the pump, I’m just not going to be a part of it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Except it’s not just Republicans that are calling for this. Members of your own caucus say we must have a vote. Congressman Jason Altmire, let me show our viewers right now, says, “There is going to be a vote. September 30 will not come and go without a vote on the opening the Outer Continental Shelf. The message has been delivered. The issue can’t be ignored any longer.” He says he speaks for a lot of Democrats. He’s talked to the leadership and a vote must happen.

PELOSI: Maybe it will, as part of a larger energy package. Let’s step back, call a halt and put this in perspective. What we have now is a failed energy policy by the Bush/Cheney, two oilmen in the White House. $4 a gallon gasoline at the pump. And what they’re saying is let’s have more of the same. Let’s have more of big oil making, record profits, historic profits. You see the quarterly reports that just came out, who want to be subsidized who don’t really want to compete. Let them use the subsidies to drill oil in protected areas. Instead we’re saying, free the oil. Use it, don’t lose it. There’s 68 million acres in lower 48 and 20 million more acres in Alaska where they’re permitted where they could drill anytime. This is a diversionary tactic from failed energy policies.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But if you feel you have the better arguments, why not give a straight up or down vote for drilling?

PELOSI: Because the misrepresentation is being made that this is going to reduce the price at the pump. This is again a decoy, it’s not a solution.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, if you’re right, why not let it be debated out and have the vote?

PELOSI: We have a debate every single day on this subject. What you saw in the Congress this week was the war dance of the hand maidens of the oil companies. That’s what you saw on the Republican side of the aisle. Democrats and Republicans are not right there on party lines on this issue. There are regional concerns, as well as some people concerned about what this means back home for them. But we have a planet to save. We have an economy to grow. And we can do that if we keep our balance in all of this and not just say but for drilling in unprotected and these protected areas offshore, we would have lower gas prices.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what exactly are you trying to say? You say you might allow a vote as part of a comprehensive package, but you won’t allow a vote on —

PELOSI: We have put on the floor. Free our oil. Strong bipartisan support for that. Use it, don’t lose it. Strong bipartisan support for that. End undue speculation, strong bipartisan support for that. We’ve talked about these things. Invest in renewable energy resources so that we can increase the supply of energy for our country. Strong bipartisan support for that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet you brought those measures to the floor in a way under the suspension of the rules so that it couldn’t be amended with a drilling proposal.

PELOSI: Well, we built consensus and have a strong bipartisan. This is what’s going to make a difference to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, to stop our dependence on fossil fuels in our own country. To increase the supply of energy immediately to reduce the price at the pump to protect the consumer. So this is a policy matter. This is very serious policy matter. It’s not to use a tactic of one — one tactic in order to undermine a comprehensive energy package to reduce our dependence on foreign oil which is a national security issue. To reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in our own country. Now, will we be talking about natural gas that’s cheaper, better for the environment —

PELOSI: They’ll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote and then they may get a vote. What I am trying to, we have serious policy issues in our country. The President of the United States has presented this but for this our economy would be booming. But for this, gas would be cheaper at the pump. It’s simply not true. Even the President himself in his statement yesterday and before then has said, there is no quick fix for this by drilling.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And Senator Obama has agreed with you. He says, listen. This is not the answer. Drilling is not the answer. But he said over the weekend that he might be willing to sign onto drilling as part of a comprehensive proposal.

PELOSI: What Senator Obama said is what we want a President to say. Let’s look at all of the options. Let’s compare them. And let’s see what really does increase our supply. Protect our environment, save our economy, protect the consumer, instead of a single shot thing that does none of the above. Why we give subsidies to big oil to drill instead of letting them —

STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to move on to other issues. Just to be clear, you are saying you will not allow a single up or down vote on drilling. But you will allow a vote on a package that includes drilling?

PELOSI: No, what I’m saying to you is, as far as I’m concerned, unless there is something that — you never say never to anything. You know, people have their parliamentary options available to them. But from my standpoint, my flagship issue as Speaker of the House and 110th Congress has been to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reverse global warming. I’m not giving the gavel — I’m not giving a gavel away to a tactic that will do neither of those things. That supports big oil at the cost and expense of the consumer.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re not going to permit a vote, you may get beat, but you’re not going to permit a vote on your own?

PELOSI: Again, we take this one step at a time. But while we’re spending all of this time on a parliamentary tactic when nothing less is at stake than the planet, the air we breathe, our children breathe.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that’s what I don’t understand. If you could get votes on everything else that you care about which you say there is strong bipartisan support, why not allow a vote on the drilling as well?

PELOSI: Because the President will not allow any of these other things to go forth. Why are we not saying to the President, why don’t you release oil from the SPR in ten days to have the price at the pump go down? Why are you opposed to any undue speculation in the oil markets? Why do you not insist that people who have leases on our land with permits ready to go use those? The oil companies don’t want competition. And what we would do by saying, go ahead, give them the subsidies. Allow them to drill in areas that are protected now, instead of where they’re allowed to drill, is to diminish all of the opportunity that we have for an electricity standard for our country. Where we set out standards that makes the competition for renewable energy resources better. Which says to the private sector, invest here because there is a standard that they have to honor. If you just say it’s drill, drill, drill, drill and we’re going to subsidize it, what is the motivation for the private sector to come in and say we’re going to support these renewable energies, wind, solar, biofuels. Plug-in cars. Natural gas and other alternatives.

Speaker Pelosi has engaged in every form of partisan gamesmanship in order to block Republicans from even having a debate over drilling measures. Apparently, that qualifies as “open, full, fair debate consisting of full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives” in the Nancy Pelosi dictatorship.

According to a CNNMoney.com poll, 73% of Americans favored offshore drilling as of June 2008.

In PelosiLand, that kind of demand from the American people calls for only one thing: a five week vacation.

House Republicans will be back on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives again Monday to continue the unprecedented protest that began last Friday, when dozens of Republicans joined hundreds of American citizens on the House floor to protest Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) decision to send Congress home for the rest of the summer without a vote on legislation to lower gas prices and move America toward energy independence.

President Bush doesn’t mind letting Democrats twist in the wind for the next five weeks while Americans become angrier and angrier.

Barack Obama reversed his position (what else is new?) against opening up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to provide immediate price relief on gas prices. He had earlier said that the Strategic Reserves should only be tapped in the event of an emergency. Apparently a nine point drop in the polls over the course of a single week qualifies as an emergency where crippling $4 plus gasoline does not. Obama is hoping that taking 70 million barrels from the Reserve would reduce the price just long enough to keep the oil issue at bay until after the election.

Obama does not seem to want to take part in Nancy Pelosi’s (Captain KoolAid’s) suicide pact with the environmentalist groups. He is clearly beginning to hedge his position on offshore drilling. But we can’t depend upon this serial pandering flip flopper to follow through with whatever promises he makes any more than we can depend upon Nancy Pelosi’s mental health.